ArticleHand (New York, N.Y.)2014
Surgical rehabilitation of a tetraplegic hand: comparison of various methods of reconstructing an absent pinch and hook.
Article in Hand (New York, N.Y.), 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- [Hand function reconstruction by tendon transfers in patients with cervical spinal cord injury].Zhongguo xiu fu chong jian wai ke za zhi = Zhongguo xiufu chongjian waike zazhi = Chinese journal of reparative and reconstructive surgery · 2018Article
- The scope of upper limb surgery for tetraplegics: Role of tendon transfers and Universal Cuff.Acta orthopaedica et traumatologica turcica · 2017Article
- Brachioradialis to flexor digitorum profundus tendon transfer to restore finger flexion.Indian journal of plastic surgery : official publication of the Association of Plastic Surgeons of IndiaArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSince complete functional restoration after spinal cord injury may not always be possible, the major focus in such cases has to be on rehabilitation. We performed surgery in such patients to reconstruct important absent hand functions viz. pinch and hook using various methods described in literature and compared their outcome.
methodsA total of 29 procedures were performed in ten patients (18 upper limbs) with tetraparesis consequent to cervical spine injury distal to C6 level who had at least grade 3 power of elbow extension but had not documented any significant improvement in hand function, at least 6 months post injury. Key pinch was reconstructed in 14 upper limbs using brachioradialis (BR) to flexor pollicis longus (FPL) transfer in 11 and pronator teres (PT) to FPL transfer in three limbs. Hook was reconstructed in 15 upper limbs: PT to flexor digitorum profundus (FDP) (n = 7), BR to FDP (n = 2), and FDP tenodesis (n = 6). The gains achieved were measured at intervals of 4 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months postoperatively and at a final possible follow-up of every patient, the average follow-up being 32 months. The functional outcome was assessed by the modified Lamb and Chan score.
resultsFor key pinch reconstruction, both BR and PT turned to be equally efficacious donors, while for hook reconstruction, PT and BR transfer to FDP turned out to be superior to FDP tenodesis. The functional outcome as assessed by the modified Lamb and Chan score revealed good to fair outcome in 70 % of patients while poor in 30 %. Complications resulted from stretching of transfer, rupture of tenodesis, and maltensioning.
conclusionSurgery can routinely be offered to suitable tetraplegics with deficient hand function in whom no useful recovery of any function is expected with at least 6 months elapsed post injury. Single-staged bilateral procedures enable maximal possible rehabilitation in minimal possible duration.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.